What Does Subaru Know That Others Don't?

stever

I think it's also a big negative since lots of people associate AWD with poor MPG.

It worked great during the Crocodile Dundee era. But when gas pops back up, Subaru should have a gas miser or two in the stable.

Putting an electric motor at the four corners could get some attention.

rsholland

Certainly we've all seen cases of other marques that were stripped of their identity for the sake of increasing market share.

Model lines too; look how the Ford Thunderbird evolved over the years. The last model they introduced a few years ago was just pathetic.

Bob

rsholland

Putting an electric motor at the four corners could get some attention

I could get behind that idea, but it's gotta be AWD to be a Subie. I do think the gas engine will (eventually) go the way of the dinosaur. Sadly I've pretty much resigned myself to that fact.

Bob

Mr_Shiftright

But is it that bad in reality? I mean, how many 2.5L four-cylinder cars do you know that can do better than the 25 mpg AVERAGE that I get on my Outback? (by average I mean dividing a years worth of gallons into a years worth of miles recorded).

Sure a Toyota Corolla or Scion will do quite a bit better, but they are smaller engines and lighter cars and don't offer the utility factor.

backy

That depends a lot on driving patterns, your own personal driving style, weather etc. etc. Hard to compare one driver's average mpg on one car with everyone else--YMMV.

oregonboy

If Shiftright's descriptions of his own driving style are accurate, he's likely in the 95th percentile for low gas mileage. :P

I think he's doing well to top 20 mpg.

rsholland

Again, I agree with you Shifty. It's more a "perception" problem, than a "reality" problem. The AWD mileage penalty is only 1 or 2 mpg at most.

I do think Subaru engines and trannys need to be updated. Direct injection and CVTs, both coming in the future, will go a long way in terms of improving gas mileage.

Bob

oregonboy

But please, PULEEEAZE, don't do away with the manual option when introducing CVTs!

rsholland

But please, PULEEEAZE, don't do away with the manual option when introducing CVTs!

I don't understand that thinking. There are no gears in a CVT, so why would you want "fake gears?" It doesn't make sense...

FWIW, the Legacy concept that was shown at Detroit and Philly, which I'm assuming had a CVT, did not, have a manual-shift mode.

Bob

scwmcan

I think it was don't do away with the manual transmision (I.E. don't just offer an automatic wether it be traditional or CVT)

rsholland

Ah, that makes sense. ...And yes there will manual gearboxes on the 2010 model.

Bob

oregonboy

I think it was don't do away with the manual transmission
Exactly!

Fake gears? We don't need no steenkin' fake gears! :mad: :P

ateixeira

Let's see 6 speed manuals and CVTs instead of autos across the board.

A very tall 6th for good highway MPG would help offset the penatly for AWD. CVTs could be geared tall at the limit as well.

CAFE regs will be a challenge for Subaru, because new proposals give breaks for large cars, but it's all according to size, not drivetrain (4WD/AWD get no such break).

They can also employ Direct Injection, but that may be too costly on the lower end of their lineup, where buyers are very price-sensitive.

I would not object to a high-mileage city car in the Subaru lineup but I do think it should incorporate AWD in a clever way, perhaps with small, in-wheel motors for the rear axle.

Toyota did something interesting with the RX and Highlander hybrids of this latest generation - they are AWD only. They actually discontinued the FWD hybrids, even though those were more efficient.

Another intesting thing is there is no driveshaft going to the rear from the engine - the rear axle is driven by electric power only.

If Subaru does a hybrid they could offer a similar solution, perhaps on a smaller scale.

rsholland

I think we'll see both 5- and 6-speed manuals, with the 5-speeds being used on base price-sensitive models.

Bob

stever

My '97 Outback has improved since I got it 5 years ago - it's up from 21 to 23.2 mpg overall. I've broken 30 on three tanks in 35,000 miles.

But my 3.0l V6 Quest gets 21.4 mpg combined. Best tank ever was 29.9 (three in that range over 130k).

A little wagon should be averaging 28 to 30 mpg in mixed driving at least, imho.

Subaru owners tend to be bang for buck people and better mpg helps there.

At least the 5k oil intervals have been extended to 7,500 (like my Quest) but 30k plug intervals isn't too great on the maintenance budget. I got 125k on my OEM Quest plugs.

Mr_Shiftright

The Outback isn't a "little wagon" though. You can stuff a lot of gear in there.

anythngbutgm

I'm completely against a FWD Subie. I've filled out my share of surveys and when they ask what is the first thang that drew me to their vehicles, AWD was at the top of the list. I remember the last time they offered FWD and it nearly killed them. They need to maintain the exclusivity of AWD standard otherwise they'll get lost in the sea of fwd carmakers like Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Ford. They'd wind up being in the same position as Mitsubushi or Suzuki. Good, but overlooked over for having nothing to standout.

But please, PULEEEAZE, don't do away with the manual option when introducing CVTs!

+1!!!

I have yet to meet an Automatic Tranny that I could live with on a daily basis. Even the wifes Outback does a bit of gearhunting and can be easily fooled.

Now where is my Forester X/T with a stick? Bob, any inside info on this

stever

Not like the van though. :shades:

But we want to downsize it. But why bother if the mpg doesn't pop up 50%?

rsholland

Steve, you're not comparing apple-to-apples. You've got to compare a FWD car and an AWD car from the same brand and ideally the with the same trim line. If you do that, be it a Subaru or any other brand that offers both FWD (or RWD) and AWD, you'll see the mpg difference is really quite small.

In fact, the Volvo S60 shows no difference at all between their FWD and AWD models.

http://www.volvocars.com/us/models/s60/Pages/techSpec.aspx

I understand what you're saying, but there are too many other variables involved when you compare a Nissan or any other brand to a Subaru.

Bob

ateixeira

Now where is my Forester X/T with a stick?

I just saw the sales break-down and the XT is such a small volume model already that we're more likely to see it discontinued entirely vs. getting a manual.

I think it was only 9% of Forester sales in the US, something like that, and by far the majority of those would be automatics.

We can't blame Subaru - they offered it, and few wanted them.

stever

I don't do percentages so someone will have to help on the math.

Back in '92 you could get a Legacy wagon in FWD and 4WD versions, 2.2l. For the 5 speed you would get:

FWD - 20/27 - 23 combined
AWD - 18/24 - 20 combined

That's about $200 a year in gas savings, and that adds up when you drive them for a decade like I do. (ok, the online calculators say that's a 15% increase. 23 mpg to 30 is a 30% increase).

fueleconomy.gov

rsholland

SOA keeps teasing us with a 6-speed Forester STI concept, but no word on whether it will be produced. They had this on display at the Philly show.

My gut feeling is that we will see a WRX-like Forester at some point, with a manual, but I have nothing to back that up.

Bob

ateixeira

I believe other models had smaller differences. I seem to recall some FWD models only had a 1 mpg advantage.

Is it worth losing your identity for a 10% gain in fuel economy?

I don't think so. Diesels boost mileage by 30-40%. Hybrids have similar gains.

I don't think customers will even notice a 10% bump. Not worth selling their soul.

Oddly enough I'd make an exception for a RWD coupe/roadster if it were sporty enough and affordable.

Mr_Shiftright

Many have tried to mess with the Miata, and few have succeeded. Mazda has a lock on that niche it seems.

rsholland

That was more than 15 years ago. I think, with all the emphasis on fuel economy these days, that gap has closed somewhat.

I do agree that a FWD Subie will get better mileage than an AWD version; I just don't think it's that much better.

Here are mpg specs on the Ford Escape, 4-cylinder and V6. There's not that much difference between the FWD and AWD versions.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/features/specs/

Bob

ateixeira

Yeah, including Toyota with the MR2. Twice.

They're aiming for under $20k for a RWD turbo coupe.

rsholland

They're aiming for under $20k for a RWD turbo coupe.

Base model maybe, but not with the turbo. I don't see how that could be done.

Bob

ateixeira

I wasn't sure they would build a non-turbo? Perhaps they will.

stever

Is it worth losing your identity for a 10% gain in fuel economy?

Well, I enjoy being frugal, so yeah, a 10% fuel economy hit hurts my social standing. :P

I'd prefer a 30% salary raise but I'll settle for 15%. Saving 15% on gas is like a rise in salary.

Subaru's AWD niche was unique back in the 90's. Now it's commonplace and the bloom is off that rose. I got my Outback because I knew the owner and knew it was a creampuff and needed a second car. I knew I'd be going to the ski hill a lot and AWD would be a bonus.

But I also drove FWD for 20 winters in snow country and I know it's really the tires, not the drivetrain that ultimately matters. I run all-seasons on the Outback and I could pop it into the guardrail easily going up and down the ski hill if I got a bit complacent. The best thing going about the Outback is that it's low to the ground so it's easy to toss canoes up there and yet it has ~7+" of ground clearance (a big failing on most minivans).

rsholland

A non-turbo is a given. That's the only way they'll get it under $20K. Knowing how much more complicated a turbo is, and Subaru's history of pricing turbos, I don't see how they will be able to get that model under $20K.

Bob

anythngbutgm

I don;t know, there was some downtime where you could not get an X/T anywhere in the Northeast. This went on for months (trust me, I looked at least twice a week) and this was right after the new design showed up. I remember reading something to do with Turbos and I bet that has something to do with the lower take rate. That combined with the exhorbitant gas prices around the time of release and I think it hurt X/T sales overall.

The only X/T my dealership got (Village Subaru in MA) was for test drives (We test drove it and it had 1500 miles already) and the only ones that ever showed up on the lots were base models. So either they sold as soon as they got them, or they just weren;t able to get any at all.

ateixeira

Maybe they just didn't produce enough, and that played a role.

Steve: I'm frugal so I hear you, I just don't think that enough people would notice for it to have an impact on sales that would offset the bruise to their image. Now you're just another make with not much to make you stand out in a sea of competitors.

I have wanted a Subaru minicar/fuel miser and a Subaru minivan, but I realize that Subaru cannot be all things to all people. They are different in that they thrive in their niches, very targeted.

Subaru does not have the resources to come up with a fuel miser that can compete with giants like Honda ($18 grand for the new Insight). If you want a fuel miser you would pick the Honda even if Subaru did offer a 2.0l FWD Impreza.

With Toyota as a partner keeping them AWD only also prevents any overlap with Toyota products. Why compete with the Yaris? They'd only hurt each other. Worse - we'd probably only get a clone of the Yaris instead of a real Subaru.

For what? Just buy a Yaris if that's what you want.

Let Subaru offer something different.

rsholland

How's this grab you? It's a SoJ concept from the Tokyo Motor Salon (Japan's SEMA) I think? Love the STI-like grille, with the carbon fiber wing at the top.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25130802&postcount=3

This one is an automatic, but the SoA Forester XTI concept at Philly (below) had a 6-speed manual.

http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/sems_forester_xti_large.jpg

Bob

morin2

We've loved our Subarus. When shopping for our next car, Subaru will be the first stop - but I'm not blind to other makes either. If Subaru offered FWD, I would have to compare the cost vs the equivalent model AWD to determine my own personal sense of value. If the AWD cost premium was minor, I would feel better about choosing it. The MPG difference would probably be minor, but if the only difference was FWD vs AWD, then I'd have to consider the pricing. Its purely a cost/benefit decision.

I'm willing to bet that Subaru markets are highest in the northeast and northwest. There are (central) parts of the country where people just don't consider AWD to be essential. IMHO, a FWD at a reduced cost would increase market share. I really don't give a damn about the exclusivity of AWD for a marque - and I have never heard a fellow Subaru owner claim that the absence of FWD in the lineup influenced his decision to buy a Subaru.

rsholland

I really don't give a damn about the exclusivity of AWD for a marque - and I have never heard a fellow Subaru owner claim that the absence of FWD in the lineup influenced his decision to buy a Subaru.

You may not, but I can tell you for a fact that those involved in making marketing decisions of any product are very protective of their brand image, and how the public might react to a major shift in how the brand might be perceived. Shifting from 100% AWD to something less than that would be a major shift for this brand, and not to be taken lightly.

Bob

stever

Good points all.

Morin2, perhaps if Subaru offered a FWD version, they could make some inroads in places like Florida. I'm used to seeing them everywhere since I've lived in snow country.

A few years back visiting family in Chattanooga I spied a high mileage 5 speed Outback in a used car lot and took it for a test drive. I spotted it right away in the front row of the lot because you rarely see them there, and it stuck out like a Peugeot would around Boise.

morin2

I actually do understand the importance of how products are perceived for marketing. I am a big fan of Subaru and constantly recommend them to co-workers, friends, relatives, etc. You may be surprised at how often I hear that people just assume that they get "crappy fuel economy" because they are AWD. I have to produce my mileage log to demonstrate my consistent 30 mpg average in my wife's Forester, with some highway trips at 31.5. People in my office have told me that they would never consider an AWD vehicle because "they get poor fuel economy". A FWD offering might help to reduce this (mis)perception.

rsholland

People in my office have told me that they would never consider an AWD vehicle because "they get poor fuel economy"

Well, as we both know, that's a myth. Yes, it likely gets (very) slightly less gas mileage than if it weren't AWD. How that "slightly less" morphs into "poor" is beyond me... The only thing I can think of is that a lot people still associate AWD with large 4WD pickups and SUVs—which do get "poor" mileage.

There is so much misinformation out there about AWD that it boggles the mind. That's what Subaru is up against—and they need to do a better job countering those incorrect assumptions.

Bob

morin2

I agree about the fuel economy myth - but myths can influence how products are perceived and how shopping & buying decisions are made. I was just told by a Matrix buyer at work this week that she never looked at a Subaru "because they are AWD and so, get poor fuel economy". I had tried to suggest a 09 Forester to no avail. I've heard this myth many times - perhaps we need an auto myth thread.

ateixeira

That first one looks *amazing*.

I must have one.

oregonboy

Here is an interesting tidbit that I remember from WAY back in the Paleolithic era, when Audi was first introducing full-time AWD:

Audi postulated that AWD vehicles were capable of better fuel economy than their 2wd brethren, because a driven tire has less rolling resistance than an undriven one. :surprise:

Real-world results must have proven their theory wrong, because the idea disappeared. I wasn't even able to find reference to it via Google. :P

oregonboy

That first one looks *amazing*

Amazing indeed! I much prefer the second version: less flash. :shades:

DMVGURU

I owned a 2002 Subaru Forester S+ AWD. Most people Do NOT know that if you get a nail,etc on the outer edge of your tread & you have more than 10,000mi. on your tires you will be in for an ugly suprise!. This happened to me on my front L. & because of it I had to replace ALL 4 Tires which was $380 and that was for standard-middle grade! I didn't believe it but I asked around to confirm what American Tire/Subaru was telling me. They state it can cause damage to your Transmission & if you have an existing warrantee you will void it if you choose to just replace 2 (If you did experience Trany issues). Also I would like to mention to all Subaru owners that I had "several" issues with my 2002: O2 sensor bad,engine flux rpm up to 2,000 & then it would drop so low the car started sputtering & then back up again in idle.They never could find the problem & I have seen others state the same. I should have done the Lemon Law B.B. buy I was stupid in trusting the service Mgr. when He "promised" the problem would be resolved. To continue the clock broke,CD/radio broke,speakers blew out 2xs,(only offered 50% off on the 3rd because warantee had just lapsed,window seals had to be replaced due to water coming in & to top it off I had the lovely Head Gasket failure!. I only had "42,000" miles on the car & even thought it was in the 4yr.stretch (1999-2003&some04's depending on mo. of manufacture) they Will Not offer ANY help unless your vehicle is still under warrantee. If you contact the Headquarters office & your persistant you "May" squeeze a few bucks out of them. I was able to get $500 out of 2,044 . To all New Subaru owners or to the ones who are trying to decide be carefull & DO NOT assume everything is covered under warantee!. I happened to be standing outside a service booth while a customer was calling in on a mechanical problem & I couldn't believe my ears but DID appreciate his honesty to the customer. He stated to the customer that when Subaru is trying to make a sale they typically DO NOT go over the warantee in detail because they are trying to make the sale! He went on to tell the customer that he was sorry but his problem would NOT be covered under warantee. I'm not sure what the specific problem was but it was definitely mechanical!. So make sure you read all of whats included & don't make assumptions. I also would like to mention that I was hit in 2007 in the front L. qrtr. panel by a Honda Pilot at 10-15mph. The result was that it swayed my whole front end,broke the axle,severely bent the rails(the oposing side looked worse than the impact side). The Total amt. in damage "$12,000"!. The cars are made to protect the occupants but don't expect the car to hold up! I recently approached Autowest(Roseville Automall) on the "possibility" of buying a slightly used or new. I had spoken to the Head of C.S. at Headquarters in 2007 about all the problems I had experienced. The ONLY reason why I even considered is because I keep my car immaculate & it has a little better resale value. In addition being close to the slopes they sell quicker. I was told in short because I was willing to consider Subaru again if & when I went to buy a new one to bring up his name & the Vin# so they could see all the problems I experienced. He stated(Mr.McEntee) that they would do a special deal for me & they really appreciated me even giving Subaru a second chance. I recently sold my Subaru to Ca. Collision on Power Inn because they tried to cheat severely on the repairs(I should have totalled the car but I had put so much work into it). I sold it to the owner for a nice amt. since he wanted to avoid Civil Court & BAR WAS involved! I took his advice & approached Autowest just to see what kind of "special" deal they would offer! Even after speaking to the Fleet Mgr. they only offered $26,604 which was a whopping $500 under Invoice on a 09 without navigation! I was even more shocked that after I told the Internet/Fleet Mgr about all the problems & provided the VIN# his reply was " I don't make the cars I just sell them". If you would like my help I'm here but if not maybe you need to consider something else & look elsewhere,Goodluck to you"! At that time I choose to bring up my conversation with Mr. McEntee and of course his response took an entirely different course. He still wouldn't come down on the price & stated that the Subaru doesn't have a problem selling(whoopee sales are up 8% to my knowledge) & this was the best he could offer. He stated they don't make much on the car. I then rec'd a generic message from the Mgr. with my name inserted stating he would work with me exclusively but at this point I Do NOT feel appreciated so I'm re-thinking my purchase. I actually had a salesman ask me in the very beginning if "I" could call him back in 1/2hr. because he was busy with a client! If you are going to buy a subaru Do NOT go to Autowest!. I'm not the only one complaining just do some research via search engine like Google. I was only looking for the Fleet Mgr.'s name & ran into some blogs. They really know how to show their appreciation! Anyways take my advice I "may" have just got a Lemon but that doesn't change the Service. I even had Florin Lie to me about my Charcoal cannister having a crack when it Didn't! I couldn't believe it when the service attendent was the one trying to explain/show me a bolt where the grease had been wipped off and stated "see here this is an impact point". They quoted $350 & "if" I was a stupid I would have been out a nice chunk of change! I contacted Headquarters & of course they had nothing to say about that I was just out $95. I called Alpha Subaru & after dissconnecting the battery cables for 20min.& Dbl checking the gas cap the check eng. light NEVER came back on. I would recommend Alpha Subaru if you are in the Sacramento area!. The owners name is Joe & he has worked on Subaru's exclusively for 20+ years. He even made an effort to see if my Head Gasket problem would be covered under warantee and called Maita on Auburn. He could have just taken my $ and not bring this possibility to my attention(there was "suppose to be a special extended warrantee on this Headgasket issue NOT)!. They just say they will try to help but no promises! Subaru on Florin wanted to chg. me $3,200 for Headgaskets,water pump,crank seals,Timing belt, andThermostat. I took it to Alpha & they not only provided more on the maintenance/repair but only charged me $2,044!!!
I could go on & on but I will leave it at that.
Good luck!, Lucci Diss. Retired DMV

oregonboy

Paragraphs are nice. You should try it.

nippononly

but poor fuel economy is the reason I have not owned another Subaru since my '97. The little Impreza is over 3000 pounds curb weight with the AWD, hundreds of pounds more than cars of comparable size from other Japanese manufacturers.

And hey, it's not just the AWD causing the low fuel economy - Subarus all use big engines, even the small models! How about a 2L Impreza making low 30s fuel economy? They HAVE smaller-engined Subarus in other places, and certainly this would be a quick and easy way to improve their fuel economy if they must keep the AWD.

Me, I like the idea of a few RWD Subarus - they would be totally unique in the under-$25K bracket if they did that (at least until the jointly developed RWD Toyota coupe debuts - even then Subaru could have a sedan and a 5-door on the same architecture and be totally unique).

And Shifty, 25 mpg from a 2.5L four? You may think that's great, but I found it dead easy to pull low 30s out of my friend's 4-cylinder Accord, and that was an automatic! High 30s was easy on the highway.

I really liked the Subaru I had, and I like Subarus in general, so I have been very tempted to jump back in countless times in the last 6 or 7 years. If they ever get a model out there with good fuel economy, I will be at the front of the line for a new one.....

stever

Combined numbers for the 2009 fleet:

Forester 21-22
Impreza 19-22
Outback 20-22
Legacy 20-22
Tribeca 18

nippononly

By contrast, the 1.8L FWD Matrix is rated at 28 mpg combined. That's a car with a bigger footprint and more interior space than the Impreza.

Even the 2.4L Matrix is rated at 25 mpg combined. But of course, it is not AWD. The AWD model is rated slightly less than the Impreza at 20/26. The Matrix takes a 10% hit on fuel economy vs its FWD counterpart, and of course here again we see it using a bigger engine to compensate for the extra weight of the AWD. The old 1.8L AWD Matrix was deemed slow by many, but achieved better mileage than the current 2.4L FWD model does, better by 10-15% vs the Impreza and new Matrix AWD, but worse by 15% than the FWD 1.8L Matrix.

Bottom line, AWD leads to other changes in design that pull fuel economy down, and there's just no getting around it.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah there's the weight issue and frictional issues, but I think most buyers realize they are getting something very worthwhile for the gas mileage they are giving up.

I'm sure owners of huge F450 diesel trucks feel the same way.

It's the people who get lousy gas mileage for no apparent good reason who are going to (and have already) lead a rebellion.

stever

the 1.8L FWD Matrix is rated at 28 mpg combined

That car doesn't exist around here, although you can get that powerplant in the Vibe version. The 2.4l with the stick was a hoot to test drive. But any stick is fun for me to drive.

nippononly

Oh certainly, I just have to speak up when people get to saying there is no fuel economy penalty for AWD. There certainly is. How much people value AWD will determine whether they are willing to suffer the fuel economy toll it takes.

I still hope that Subaru eventually releases some smaller-engined Imprezas or other small models, so that fuel economy will no longer be an obstacle to me getting another one. ;-)